www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Union of Uzhorod document

Slava Isusu Christu!

I thought the Forum would appreciate this:

-----------------------------------------
"UNION OF UZHOROD

By the grace of Christ elected Most Holy FATHER and UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH. We the priests, the innate sons of the Holy Greek Rite and the inhabitants of the Apostolic Kingdom and who are registered through the counties in the list of our names, we know that the royal sacrament should be hidden, but the works of God should be revealed and be manifested more clearly than the sun to all people, as such one, through which the inexpressible goodness and mercy of our God toward the rational creature used to be declared.
Therefore, fixed unto this principle and angelic rule, we let know before the whole world, to your Holiness and we announce and we extol with praises rising to heaven, namely that by the grace of God and our Savior, which was liberally diffused into use by the operation of which the most loveable glad tidings of the Salvation of the Souls, and by the abdication of the Greek insane Schism, we have been taken back and we have been rebetrothed to the Immaculate Virgin, to the Spouse of the Only Begotten Son of God, that is to say to the Holy Roman Church, which without any guilt on her part, up to this day had been hated by us. This very reduction of ours had been done in the year of Salvation on thousand six hundred forty nine on the 24th day of April during the reign of Ferdinand the Third, the Sacred Roman Emperor in the latin church of the Fort of Ungwar, on the grounds of the Right Honorable Count George de Homonna, who was present. The Right Reverend Bishop of Munkacs, Basilus Taraszovics, who was already departed from among the living ones, who by having followed the tenets of the Schismatics and heretics broke the fetters of the Holy Union, he publically reannounced the announcement of the Catholic Church. Perceiving this the venerable father in Christ the Lord George Jakusics, Bishop of Eger, who is already resting in Christ, having with him the reverend Basilian Fathers invited for this purpose; the Father Peter Parthenius, who to-day, is our Bishop and the reverend Gabriel Cassovicius, he invited us most kindly through his letters to Ungwar, and delivering us an opportune person about the Holy Union, through the aforesaid Fathers, what he had in mind, by the Holy Spirit disposing us so, he affected it most easily, and he set up the Feast Day of St. George the Martyr for the profession of the Faith. On that day we sixy-three priests assembled, having followed the aforesaid Most Reverend Bishop of Eger into the above-mentioned Church. Having celebrated the Mystery of the Sacrifice without the shedding of blood in our Ruthenian language, and some of the priests having confessed their sins sacramentally, we pronounced the Profession of the Faith publicly and in audible voice the prescribed form. That is to say: we believe all and everything that our Holy Roman Mother Church orders to believe, we profess our Holiest Father Lord Innocent the X. to be the Universal Pastor of the Church of Christ and of us, we profess that we wish and want to depend on Him with our Successors, but with these added conditions: First; that we be allowed to keep the Greek Rite, Second; to have the Bishop chosen by us and confirmed by the Apostolic See, Third; To use freely the ecclesiastical immunities, to which the Most Reverend Bishop most easily consented. The same thing had been approved in the year of 1648 by the Benedict KISDI, Bishop of Eger with his Vicar General, while the Reverend Father in Christ, Thomas Jaszbereny, S.J., religious was assisting This affair of ours was in the highest degree strengthened by the paternal solicitude of the Right Honorable and Right Reverend Prince of Hungary, George Lippay, Arch Bishop of Esztergom, who had been visited twice by a delegation consisting of the aforesaid Basilian Fathers; also the Right Reverend Bishop of Vac, Lord Matthew Tarnoczy, to whom we are bound in perpetuity. By informing YOUR Holiness of all these things, we humbly and unanimously ask the paternal benediction, the promotion of our affair and the confirmation of the Reverend Parthenius the Bishop elected by us. Ungvar, year 1652 Fifteenth day of January, the obedient servants, the Greek Rite priests.

Alexius Ladomirski
Arch Deacon of Makovica.

Stephan Andreas,
Arch Deacon of Spia.

Greogory Hostovicki
Arch Deacon of Homonna.

Stephen.................,
Arch Deacon of Strena.

Daniel Ilvanovich,
Arch Deacon of Uza.

Alexius Philipovics,
Arch Deacon of Stropko."

Work Cited:

Warzeski, Walter C. "Appendix A: Union of Uzhorod." Byzantine Rite Rusins in Carpatho-Ruthenia and America. Byzantine Seminary Press: Pittsburgh, PA. 1971. 272-273.

(Note: author says above " appears in the Golden Jubilee, pp. 371-374.)

(Punctuation and grammar of text is as it is in the book.)

Enjoy!

In Mary,

Rob

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I had been looking for this, I finally gave up because I didn't know where to look.

Thank you very much Robert!

Michael

FYI, the "Golden Jubilee" reference is to "The Golden Jubilee Almanac of the Greek Catholic Union of the USA," (Zoloto-Jubilejnyj Kalendar' Greko. Kaft. Sojedinenija v S.s.a.) published in 1942, which is the source for that English translation.

A slightly different English translation appears in "The Union of Uzhorod," by Michael Lacko S.J., published in 1966 by the Slovak Institute. It appears there on pages 107-108.

--tim

Slava Isusu Christu!

Thanks Tim on that further elaboration regarding the citation. I had to do an inter-library loan through my University: www.uaf.edu/index [uaf.edu] to get that book. I stayed up all night to finish it. Quite the gem!

I think it is important to reflect on this document. Indeed, it is a very revealing document! Take these statements for example:

"By the grace of Christ elected Most Holy FATHER and UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH...and by the abdication of the Greek insane Schism, we have been taken back and we have been rebetrothed to the Immaculate Virgin, to the Spouse of the Only Begotten Son of God, that is to say to the Holy Roman Church... we pronounced the Profession of the Faith publicly and in audible voice the prescribed form. That is to say: we believe all and everything that our Holy Roman Mother Church orders to believe, we profess our Holiest Father Lord Innocent the X. to be the Universal Pastor of the Church of Christ and of us, we profess that we wish and want to depend on Him with our Successors."

The above is a legal document and sets in stone a construct that is far removed from the current one, i.e. our Church being an Orthodox Church in communion with the Holy See or even one of being a sui juris Church. When these priests were received they were not received into an Eastern Church, but were canonically Latin until Rome created a canonical provision for a seperate Rite that would have its own hierachy et al. Now mind you the profession of faith was done orally and no documents were signed by these priests as per the information in the text. It took quite a while for Rome to make this idea, the idea of a seperate canonical Church, into concrete reality.

I will have more thoughts as I process the whole thing internally.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Michael:

Your welcome! I could not find this document on the internet; so I think I am the first to put it online. I have looked everywhere for it. If anyone knows if it is online someplace--Give me a heads up.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Well, I have processed the information

There is a major problem with this document.

But, before I begin my meagre assessment: let me repudiate some myths that seem to have crept into our Greek Rite consciousness. Note I used the historical phrase: "Greek Rite" as per the above document. And I am using Rite in its traditional sense as a Papal-allowed ritual tradition other than the Roman Rite: not as a sui juris ritual church.

Some myths are that the Rusyn Orthodox priests who made their profession of Faith did not understand Latin dogma or the Counter-Reformation papacy. There is also the assumption that these presbyters did not want to become Latin Catholics who were given indult to have the Greek Rite with supporting clergy and hierarchs; with this the assumption is that these presbyters wanted to remain Rusyn Orthodox on an equal communio with the Holy See or Sister Churches in Communion. Other assumption-myths are that these Orthodox presbyters did not accept the *whole* of the Roman magisterial construct: that they wanted to remain Orthodox vs, keeping Rusyn Greek Rite liturgical praxis and patrimony while maintaining the Faith of the Holy See.

It is well known that because of the class difference: that the these Rusyn presbyters wanted equality with Latin clergy and the same amenities. Indeed, from an integral standpoint it seems that these Rusyn presbyters sold out for the pleasures of being a part of the upper classes; while the poor Carpatho-Rusyn people gained nothing from the Unia; indeed many resisted the Unia and kept the old faith of Orthodoxy in spite of the powerplay of the Greek Rite clergy who converted to Rome. Over time, however, the majority of the Rusyn people became Greek Rite Catholics.

Now, the assessment: God help me!

The language the Rusyn Orthodox presbyters use in the document is ostensibly Latin. The pious-rhetoric is also Roman: "By the grace of Christ elected Most Holy FATHER and UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH...we have been rebetrothed to the Immaculate Virgin, to the Spouse of the Only Begotten Son of God, that is to say to the Holy Roman Church...we believe all and everything that our Holy Roman Mother Church orders to believe, we profess our Holiest Father Lord Innocent the X. to be the Universal Pastor of the Church of Christ." The demands of the Greek Rite clergy are only: "First; that we be allowed to keep the Greek Rite, Second; to have the Bishop chosen by us and confirmed by the Apostolic See, Third; To use freely the ecclesiastical immunities, to which the Most Reverend Bishop most easily consented." Let us analyze the words "be allowed." This is in regard to the "Greek Rite." Now if these clergy were coming before Pope Innocent X as equals or as a Sister Church would there be a use of the words "be allowed?" I seriously doubt it. These are words used by converts to the Latin Church who are asking for a special provision as per the judgement of the Roman Pontiff. In other words these Rusyn Orthodox clergy, who have now become Latin Catholic clergy through their profession of Faith, are begging the Vicar of Christ for an indult. This deconstructs the notion that the Rusyn Catholic Church holds to the Eastern Orthodox Faith, 7 Councils, rejects Latin distinctives, and was created a canonical entity from the very beginning. There was also the myth that we had the right to elect our own hierarch in the beginning.

The Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania, His Eminence Stephen Simonivic consecrated Father Peter Petrovic as our first Hierarch. The problem is that the consecration was not confirmed by the Holy See and was illicit, from the Roman standpoint. Rome never really confirmed the second demand of the Greek Rite convert clergy, namely, that they had the right to elect their own hierarch. Indeed it was not until May 13, 1655 that Bishop Peter was confirmed and absolved from all irregularities by the Roman Pontiff and given care over the Greek Rite faithful. However, he was just a vicar-general of the Latin Ordinary of Eger; since Rome did not create a distinctive Greek Rite eparchy until Maria Theresa appealed to Rome that some action was taken to secure a seperate diocese not under jurisdiction of the Latin Ordinary. This was done on September 19, 1771 by the Roman Pontiff making Mukachevo the first Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Rite eparchy.

Vatican II obviously made a dramatic shift in the ecclesiology of the Church. In my view this is extremely positive. As the above can attest it was not until this Council that the Eastern Catholic Churches were being affirmed as "sister churches" within the Catholic Communion. Before the Council we were not viewed as being able to have a particular sovereignty as part of our ontology as an Eastern Catholic Church. We were under Rome, seperate from the Latins, equal only on paper but not in praxis.

This is a dramatic shift. Indeed, I think we should put the Union of Uzhorod document in the ecclesial circular file. But, the reality is that the Rusyn Orthodox presbyters that came into union with Rome converted to the Latin Church and became Latin priests who negotiated the maintenance of their particular Greek Rite. They also intended to subscribe to all that "our Holy Roman Mother Church orders to believe." Relying upon the foundation of the Unia we are nothing but Papal Catholics who use the Greek Rite and customary. However, we cannot re-claim our true status as sister churches with Rome until Rome re-configures its ecclesiology to match that of Orthodoxy; if it does not than the construct of the Union of Uzhorod still stands; and no equality with the Latin Church is possible, in spite of rhetoric from the Eastern Code et al. If Rome continues to back peddle towards its traditional ecclesiology than we are as we were in the beginning; indeed, any pontiff can of his own authority go back to Trent and reverse the post-Vatican II construct.

The question the Orthodox have is how can Rome create an ecclesial species other than itself, i.e. a seperate ritual Church? Since they do not see the papal perogotives as Orthodox they cannot see us as anything other than Latin Catholics who use the Greek Rite. This is evidenced in the actions of the Antiochian Archdiocese with the Western Rite. They have not created a seperate juridicial-canonical entity with these faithful, since in reality they cannot. The Western Rite faithful are Antiochian Orthodox (I am speaking here specifically of the AA not excluding the WR faithful in other Juridictions). And hence they view us as Byzantine Rite faithful who are Roman Catholic. As per the genesis of our Unia can we really defend our identity in the eyes of our Orthodox bretheren?

The clincher is: if Rome re-configures itself based on an Orthodox model: we have hope for our dream of autocephaly; if it does not then we should be honest and either be true to the construct of the Unia, being Latin in Faith and Eastern in praxis: or be received into our Mother Church in Orthodoxy, the Patriarchate of Constantinopolis and be content until the Great Union of these Apostolic Communities.

In the Philanthropos,

Rob

Dear Rob,

I gathered from your post the main concern is CANONICAL instead of THEOLOGICAL. If my understanding is correct, then I do not see a problem - at least not one that cannot be overcome. The Popes of Rome, for 100 years or so now, have been particularly sensitive to Eastern concerns. And a united Eastern front on the matter, along with the voices of Westerns who support Eastern causes, would definitely be a decisive factor in the issue.

The following, not directed to anyone in particular, though it is instigated by a particular statement contained in Rob's assessment:

Though I am not Catholic, I am beginning to get indignant of the statement that Rome can do anything she wants. I have had reason to investigate canonical questions intensively of late, and I have found that we Orthodox have historically not always obeyed our own canons. The charge that "Orthodox can do anything they want" is easily applicable to us, as well as Rome --- except for the fact that I do not hear Western Catholic apologists accuse the Orthodox of this, yet I constantly hear Easterns (Catholic and Orthodox) accuse Rome of this.

The log is in our eye, and we cannot take it out anymore (because it is the status quo) without doing great damage to the peace of the Churches. What we CAN do, however - AT LEAST - is stop using the polemic that Rome can do anything she wants and use that as a barrier to unity. True, Rome has done many things in the past that would justify an accusation AT THAT TIME that "Rome can do anything she wants; but then again, we Orthodox IN THE PAST have also done things that would justify an accusation AT THAT TIME that "the Orthodox can do anything they want."

But we are in the here and now. Rome has not done the kind of things she did that were not canonically proper from the Orthodox perspective for at least 200 years (yes, there was the debacle regarding Bishop Ireland, but that was not at the instigation of the Pope of Rome, and he did not interfere in the situation "under his own power," but only did so upon request of the Archbishop of the local community). And I don't think the Orthodox have done anything canonically improper of late either (well---the current situation with the EP might - MIGHT - be a case; but as I am an OO, not an EO, I don't want to judge the matter).

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

God bless all,
Marduk

Paper must have been very expensive in those days. I have never seen so many words packed into one page.

Dr Jerry Markiza of Concordia University (Montreal) wrote a book way back in the 1980's titled: 'The Politics of a Church Union'. The suject was the 1596 'Treaty of Brest'. You may find this book usefull in helping you better make sense of church politics of the era.

Hritzko

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I will have to admit that I have little-to-no knowledge of this immediate subject. I haven�t had anything to read on it until now, and all I ever knew was from encyclopedia reports that the priests of the area went over to Rome.

My question is this: what bishop or bishops were these priests incardinated to before the union? What bishops ordained them and what happened to those bishops?

If there was no bishop involved in this union from the Orthodox side what are the implications of that?

Is there anyone who has access to the details of the historic event?

Michael

Dear Michael,

Thanks for asking that question. I have wondered myself as to the reasons for no episcopal involvement.

The situation is perplexing because the 1596 Union Treaty of Brest was signed by Rusyn bishops and in many cases resisted by the priests.

Even more perplexing is the fact that the Rusyns (as they were then called) bishops of Lviv (now Western Ukraine) and Premyszl (now Poland) also accepted the treaty about 50 years after the original signitories did. This occured at about the same time as the Carpatho-Rusyn's treaty with Rome.

My assumption was that there were no Rusyn Orthodox bishops up to the time of the Unia. The latin rite bishops ordained the priests for the minority Rusyn population. The priests were then subordinate to the Latin rite bishops. The Magyars (Hungarians) liked things this way because it helped the Rusyns from forming stronger fraternal bonds with the larger Rusyn groups (ie: Halychyna / Galicia) and /or exhibiting any forms of self determination.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hritzko

Michael and Hritzko,

The Carpatho-Rusyn priests were under the Bishop of the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Mukachevo, which answered directly to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Ordinations of its bishops were done by Romanian Orthodox bishops in Transylvania. The Latin Bishops of Eger did consider the Bishops of Mukachevo as their episcopal vicars after the Union until the offcial recognition of the Eparchy of Mukachevo in 1771 but there is nothing to suggest that the Bishops of Mukachevo ever did anything than act as ordinaries for their people.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The story is laid out in the Pekar's "Bishops of Mukachevo" (which I don't, unfortunately, have handy for more detail and corrrect spellings of names).

The pro-Union Bishop Tarsovich (sucessor to two previous pro-union bishops who spent time in exile) was under under house arrest (and at times in prison); the local Lord, Rackoczi (sp) was a militant Calvinist who strongly opposed the Union. (The "coersion" was anti- not pro-union!) He sent an aide (Petrovich?)) out to the Western regions to initiate the Union with assistance from the Bishop of Eger. Only after the death of Rackoczi, and the return of his widow to Catholicism, was Petrovich able to occupy the See in Mukachevo, although he was named to the see sometime earlier.
Canonlilcally this was all a little dicey, but in times of persecution, so it goes.

Not sure what is the point here.

Whatever words or forms have been attached to this movement over time, however the recognition of of this movement has developed over timne over time, what clearly happened was that our worshipping community - a church - entered into communion with the RCC, with the intention of adhering to "our" way, in its salient characteristics.

While there may have been legal formula attached to this movement, there was, in reality, no creation of anything. There was a worshipping community before, and after, and it was the same worshipping community, worshipping in the same way. Nothing was taken that was ours to begin with. And there was certainly no intention to be "Latin" - anyone who wished for this could have just become a Latin Catholic.

btw, wasn't L'viv another fifty odd years later?

I thought L'viv was around 1700.

Are we to assume then that the document of the Union of Uzhorod had no bishops on it because the bishop was locked up?

And where did these Basilians come from? K'yiv?

Lastly, was the monastery bishop dependent upon Transylvania before the Hungarians when the Turks were in power there?

Michael

I think from Kyiv is right.

Things were very murky for a few decades. Here is something from Father Pekar on-line, focussed more on Maramorosh.

http://uaoc.org/maramaros.html